Glad to see you guys watch that series as they have all sorts of usefull stuff they discuss that I would never have thought about. This in particular is usefull even for non-game developers to watch as it brings home just why it costs so much to make a game professionally.

Glad to see you guys watch that series as they have all sorts of usefull stuff they discuss that I would never have thought about. This in particular is usefull even for non-game developers to watch as it brings home just why it costs so much to make a game professionally.

This extra credits video caused a lot of noise on the internet too.

The interesting,or sad, part of that is tha most commenters agreed with the conclusion that a triple A game expected to sell millions of copies /should/ be priced between $80 and $90 to be able to recover the production cost (and risk). Yet instantly balked at the notion that if the players refuse to pay more than $60 (as seems to be the case) game studios /need/ an additional source of revenue to make up for the $20 to $30 shortage.

I totally agree that companies like EA are way over the line with their predatory business practices, but then so did the extra credits staff in their initial and subsequent videos on the subject. They always stated that real currency markets in games only work if they sell things that players /enjoy/ buying, instead of feel compelled into (or worse: ripped off for) buying.

Glad to see you guys watch that series as they have all sorts of usefull stuff they discuss that I would never have thought about. This in particular is usefull even for non-game developers to watch as it brings home just why it costs so much to make a game professionally.

This extra credits video caused a lot of noise on the internet too.

The interesting,or sad, part of that is tha most commenters agreed with the conclusion that a triple A game expected to sell millions of copies /should/ be priced between $80 and $90 to be able to recover the production cost (and risk). Yet instantly balked at the notion that if the players refuse to pay more than $60 (as seems to be the case) game studios /need/ an additional source of revenue to make up for the $20 to $30 shortage.

I totally agree that companies like EA are way over the line with their predatory business practices, but then so did the extra credits staff in their initial and subsequent videos on the subject. They always stated that real currency markets in games only work if they sell things that players /enjoy/ buying, instead of feel compelled into (or worse: ripped off for) buying.

No one asked for triple A developers/producers to spend so much making a game. The public didn't cry out for better graphics, the games industry went in that direction telling us that's what we wanted. You get indie games that are wildly successful and they didn't cost millions to make. Or you can get games with a smaller budget sell better than expected.

If a game is good, people will buy it. Putting more money into a game doesn't guarantee it'll be good.

EA told it's shareholders that removing the microtransactions from Battlefront 2 wouldn't affect earnings. So they were there to just milk more money out of people.

The problem is that the triple A game industry isn't putting microtransactions and other garbage in games that would need them to make up revenue. They put them in games that will sell well regardless.

And the argument that this sort of thing is needed kinda falls flat when you realize there are games that are free to play, expensive games like MMO's, that somehow make money.

So for some games, like say Battlefront 2, they could have released it for free with the microtransactions (though admittedly they'd need to have a much more fair progression system to make the players not feel swindled) and made, probably, more than they did.

Higher end graphics is a competitive point. Back in the 90's, the competitive point was elaborate storylines. There will always be someone willing to spend more to get a tiny bit of an edge.

From a technical point not many gamers actually care about graphics that much but rather aesthetics, even though most use the term graphics. Graphics is just a tool (that is the different techniques and/or features) and as with any tool you have to use it correctly, just adding higher end graphics does not magically make it look good. Yes it can certainly make good aesthetics look better but it won't make bad ones look good.

Aesthetics are hard to explain to pointy haired bosses. Graphics are easy.

At least you're the big-wig in question right now. The fact that you actually understand the points behind this crap is likely to be a real boon in the way things develop. So, so often games seem to be designed by committee, and in a way disconnected from the playerbase. But you kind of are our playerbase, just in a position of power over the game's development, and that's a wonderful thing.

—

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

I must admit that first, the aesthetics are the first thing i'm looking in a game and then after the graphics are a subject of attention. But between, i look at the gameplay mecanics.
This video is really good :)

Glad to see you guys watch that series as they have all sorts of usefull stuff they discuss that I would never have thought about. This in particular is usefull even for non-game developers to watch as it brings home just why it costs so much to make a game professionally.

This extra credits video caused a lot of noise on the internet too.

The interesting,or sad, part of that is tha most commenters agreed with the conclusion that a triple A game expected to sell millions of copies /should/ be priced between $80 and $90 to be able to recover the production cost (and risk). Yet instantly balked at the notion that if the players refuse to pay more than $60 (as seems to be the case) game studios /need/ an additional source of revenue to make up for the $20 to $30 shortage.

I totally agree that companies like EA are way over the line with their predatory business practices, but then so did the extra credits staff in their initial and subsequent videos on the subject. They always stated that real currency markets in games only work if they sell things that players /enjoy/ buying, instead of feel compelled into (or worse: ripped off for) buying.

No one asked for triple A developers/producers to spend so much making a game. The public didn't cry out for better graphics, the games industry went in that direction telling us that's what we wanted. You get indie games that are wildly successful and they didn't cost millions to make. Or you can get games with a smaller budget sell better than expected.

If a game is good, people will buy it. Putting more money into a game doesn't guarantee it'll be good.

EA told it's shareholders that removing the microtransactions from Battlefront 2 wouldn't affect earnings. So they were there to just milk more money out of people.

The problem is that the triple A game industry isn't putting microtransactions and other garbage in games that would need them to make up revenue. They put them in games that will sell well regardless.

And the argument that this sort of thing is needed kinda falls flat when you realize there are games that are free to play, expensive games like MMO's, that somehow make money.

So for some games, like say Battlefront 2, they could have released it for free with the microtransactions (though admittedly they'd need to have a much more fair progression system to make the players not feel swindled) and made, probably, more than they did.

I will firmly admit that the philosophical grounding point that I have always been using for everything associated with the project is thoroughly non-zero sum. I fully anticipate every decision I make to have a cost, so my goal has always been to make sure that those costs are never borne on the community and future player base unless it proves to be unavoidable. In the early days, we actually had a very pointed argument about whether or not it's possible to have a win in which no participant ends up losing. It's that argument which left me thoroughly baffled why business programs don't tend to have an introductory course on game theory and/or evolutionary biology.

Doctor Tyche wrote:

Aesthetics are hard to explain to pointy haired bosses. Graphics are easy.

Fortunately, I am not pointy haired. Amusingly, the general experience has been that aesthetics have been the easiest thing to explain to me, with particulars of certain graphical decisions being something I have difficulty grasping. The general consensus of the project leadership is that I simply have a non-euclidean mind. This, of course, means that Nate is prepared to make sure I'm not an elder god in disguise by any means necessary. :)

—

That's not too much of a headache. Though considering in this case, "much" is essentially 3.141592(ei- ie) over 0.

I cant tell you enough how much It makes me equal parts extremely happy, and borderline terrified to see you guys posting these youtube videos. On the one hand I'm super happy, in the sense, that you are posting informative material like this for people like me and others, who wouldn't otherwise know what it takes to try to create something on this level. It shows that you are not only aware of the difficulty, but up to the challenge and are trying to do what it takes to create something meaningful and are striving to do your best. On the other hand, when i see the production cost of what it usually takes to put out a game like the one you are in the midst of creating i cant help but cringe. For those who would wish to help contribute (and i apologize if i completely missed it) when will the second kickstarter or equivalent begin?

You haven't missed anything and we're working on the Second Chance. We're being really careful with the SC because we don't want y'all's accounts to get hacked once money changes hands; that gets bad for everyone.